Lawsuits continue around the country as to whether glyphosate is a carcinogen and whether plaintiffs suffering from various forms of cancer can sue — and prevail — against the manufacturers of glyphosate. In this article, we discuss recent developments with respect to California’s efforts to list glyphosate as a carcinogen and to require warning labels on products containing glyphosate.

Kennesaw Product Liability Litigators — Background on Glyphosate

Glyphosate is the ingredient in a widely-used herbicide called “Roundup” manufactured by the Monsanto Corporation and others (Monsanto’s patent expired in the 1990s and other herbicides containing glyphosate are now produced and sold by other companies). Roundup was first introduced for use in the 1970s. Today, more than 80 percent of US farms use some form of Roundup. Glyphosate kills weeds by being absorbed into the structure of the plant and root system and blocking certain enzymes. But because the chemical is sprayed on all the plants — including the plants destined for American dining tables — glyphosate can be found into many popular foods like “Cheerios,” a cereal made by General Mills. Because glyphosate is absorbed by the plant fiber, the chemical cannot be washed off. Glyphosate has been linked with many cancers, most closely with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans based on evidence that it caused cancer in experimental animals and in humans. See brief summary here.

Based on the IARC report and other studies showing a cancer risk associated with glyphosate, in 2015, the State of California began the process of listing glyphosate as probably carcinogenic under various California health laws and regulations. If listed, the California statute (i) prohibits discharge of the chemicals into sources of drinking water and (ii) requires rigorous warning labels. You might have seen the warning of various products. The typical warning language is: CHEMICAL “… is known to the state of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.” Failure to comply with the warning requirements can result in penalties up to $2,500 per day for each failure, enforcement actions by the California Attorney General and lawsuits by private citizens who may recover attorney’s fees. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 11 § 3201.

Pursuant to the law and promulgated regulations, in November 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a Notice of Intent to List Glyphosate on the list of known carcinogens. Glyphosate was thereafter listed on July 7, 2017 with the attendant warning requirement to have taken effect on July 7, 2018.

The listing of glyphosate as a carcinogen spawned two lawsuits of note.

In 2017, various plaintiffs filed suit in Federal Court making various challenges to the listing and to the warning requirements. The plaintiffs were partially successful, but only with respect to the warnings. Since the listing itself was not struck down, glyphosate is still subject to the prohibition against discharge-into-sources-of-drinking water. With respect to the warning requirement, in February 2018, a federal court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting California from enforcing the warning requirement as a violation of the manufacturers’ free speech. The court held the warning requirements to be government-compelled-commercial speech that violated the First Amendment. See National Association of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, Civ. No. 2:17-2401 WBS EFB (US Dist. Court, ED California February 26, 2018).

In general, the government can require businesses to list information on products if the information is “purely factual and uncontroversial information” and as long as the “disclosure requirements are reasonably related” to a substantial government interest and are neither “unjustified [n]or unduly burdensome.” See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985). In National Assoc. of Wheat Growers, the court held that California’s warning requirement did not meet the Zauderer standard. Issues with respect to glyphosate are not uncontroversial. The court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the warning requirement. Of note, however, the court did not enjoin the State from listing glyphosate as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.

In the other case, Monsanto and the other manufacturers sued California in state court arguing, essentially, that California’s statute authorizing such listings was improper for various reasons and that California could not list glyphosate on the basis of a study done by a foreign, non-USA entity. The IARC is located in France and the studies it conducted were conducted mostly in Europe. As Monsanto and the other plaintiffs phrased it, “…. it is improper for a foreign entity, unaccountable to the citizens of California, to determine what chemicals are known to the state to cause cancer.” See Monsanto Company v. OEHHA, Case No. No. F075362, 22 Cal. App. 5th 534 (Cal. Court of Appeals 5th Dist. April 19, 2018). The trial court rejected all claims and the California Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals held that government regulators could rely on research and scientific findings from other countries. Any challenge to scientific findings had to be based on the science and methodology, not the nation of origin.

Monsanto also claimed that the listing was done in violation of the non-delegation provision of the California Constitution. Under that provision, the California legislature is prohibited from delegating to others — such as a state agency — the power to enact laws. However, the court rejected this argument holding that the law was properly enacted — via a ballot initiative — and that, as long as the statute provides proper guidelines and standards, there is nothing improper about delegating to a state health agency the responsibility for identifying the specific chemicals that would be subject to the law. Based on a review of the statutory scheme, the court held there to be built-in safeguards that provided adequate protection against potentially arbitrary or abusive determinations. The court rejected all the other arguments made by the plaintiffs.

In summary, barring pending appeals, glyphosate is now listed as a chemical “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” Glyphosate is thereby subject to regulation with respect to discharge into California drinking water, but enforcement of the warning requirement has been enjoined as improper government-compelled commercial speech.

For more information, contact the Kennesaw medical device malpractice attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices Our attorneys can help if you — or a loved one — has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers which might be connected to exposure to Roundup or other glyphosate-containing products. We are experienced and proven product liability litigators. We provide legal services for the residents of Cobb County including the communities of Kennesaw, Acworth, Marietta and the surrounding areas. Click here to schedule your consultation.

A legal battle is on the horizon for a small United Nations-related research agency alleging that the active ingredient glyphosate in the world’s most popular weed killer — RoundUp, marketed in the United States by Monsanto — is likely carcinogenic to humans. The research agency — which is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — once claimed coffee was also a possible carcinogen. Concerns about the chemical were originally asserted in March of 2015 but there are also concerns about alleged selective suppression of documents that refute the public conclusions of the IARC, according to a news report.

Lawsuits in the U.S. and Beyond

A flood of lawsuits is currently underway seeking monetary damages from Monsanto based, in part, on the IARC’s opinion linking RoundUp with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer (NHL) and other associated forms of leukemia. In the United States, approximately 700 RoundUp cancer lawsuits have been filed on behalf of 3,000 individuals in courts across the nation. The lawsuits claim Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the risk of cancer associated with RoundUp products.

The majority of the U.S.-based legal actions face an important hearing as early as December 2017 to decide the scientific merits of the claims. The hearing was triggered by legal debates between Monsanto’s lawyers and scientific experts alleging the weed killer causes cancer. Monsanto’s attorneys requested a judge toss out the expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs. A number of states in the U.S. apply a different standard of admitting scientific testimony than the federal standard known as the Daubert standard.

Battle of the Scientists

The scientific (and legal) fight over whether or not RoundUp’s glyphosate causes cancer continues while the lawsuits remain open. Most recently, a large long-term study on the use of RoundUp by agricultural workers in the U.S. found no firm link between exposure to the glyphosate-containing pesticide and cancer. The study, which was recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) concluded there was no statistical association between the chemical and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies over all, including NHL. The study, known as the Agricultural Health Study, focused on farm workers and their exposure to pesticides reiterated conclusions it had originally reached in 2001 based on its new analysis that was completed in 2014. The study was not considered in the IARC’s analysis — according to the agency — because the JNCI’s conclusions had yet to be published.

Beyond affecting the legal landscape of the pending lawsuits, the study’s findings may also influence the European Union’s decision — due by the end of 2017 — of whether or not glyphosate should be re-licensed for sale across the EU.

Since the IARC classified glyphosate as carcinogenic, regulatory authorities around the globe — including the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia — have publicly noted that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

RoundUp makes up approximately 40 percent of the global market share for the herbicide glyphosate, according to Monsanto. Presently Monsanto is in the middle of a $63.5 billion merger with chemical giant Bayer. The merger is currently being reviewed by the European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Products Liability Claims

Defective and/or dangerous products are often the cause of injuries to thousands of individuals each year. These injuries fall under product liability, which encompasses the rules concerning who is financially responsible for the harm caused by defective products put out in the marketplace. Product liability is different from ordinary personal injury law and, depending on the facts of the case, it may be easier for an injured party to recover monetary damages. Under products liability law the designer, manufacture and/or seller of a defective product — in other words, all actors in the distribution chain — may be held liable for harm caused. This means named defendants in a product liability case include: the product manufacturer, a party that installs or assembles the product, a manufacturer of component parts of the product, the wholesaler, and the retailer that sold the product to the consumer.

Generally speaking, products must meet the ordinary expectations of the consumer. When a produce has an unexpected danger or defect, it has not met consumers’ ordinary expectations. Because there is no federal product liability law, products liability claims are governed by state law. Typically these claims are brought under the theories of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty. Beyond these legal theories there are commercial statutes in each state, which are modeled from the Uniform Commercial Code, that contain warranty rules that govern product liability cases. For strict liability to apply — meaning negligence need not be established to succeed — the sale of the product must have occured in the regular course of the supplier’s business. In other words, if the injured party purchased the product at a garage sale the seller would likely not be liable.

Historically, a contractual relationship had to exist between the injured party and the supplier of the product for a claim to be valid. Now, however, any person who foreseeably could have been hurt by a defective product may recover compensation for harm suffered as long as the product was sold in the marketplace to someone.

Types of Defects

No matter what legal theory of liability, the injured party (the plaintiff) in a product liability case must establish that the product that caused the harm was defective and the defect was unreasonably dangerous. There are three types of defects that give rise to a product liability claim:

Manufacturing defects: the defect occurs in the course of the product’s manufacture or assembly so that the product does not match the intended design;

Design defects: this defect exists in the product at the onset and no matter whether the product is manufactured perfectly to the design specifications, it is inherently unsafe;

Marketing defects: the manner in which the product is marketed to the consumer is flawed due to improper, insufficient, or inadequate labels, safety warnings, instructions or other aspects of the product.

RoundUp Attorneys

If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins’ Lymphoma (NHL) or any other type of cancer due to exposure to RoundUp, contact the skilled RoundUp Weedkiller attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices. Aggressively fighting on behalf of the injured for over 25 years. Click here today to schedule your initial case evaluation.

Several plaintiffs have joined in a class action product liability lawsuit earlier this year against Monsanto, the maker of the popular weedkiller Roundup, alleging exposure to the product caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Allegations also claim while exposure resulted in some becoming ill, others died from the disease. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of 45 different users of the product, as well as some spouses or surviving family members. Each one of the claims within the lawsuit allege that Monsanto was aware – for decades – about the increased risk of cancer associated with exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide but withheld warnings and information from the public.

Concerns Get Widespread Attention

Worries about the risks of illnesses due to exposure gained attention across the globe after the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared the chemical used in Roundup – glyphosate – as well as other weedkillers was a likely carcinogen. This announcement caused widespread concerns about why Monsanto failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and recommended safety precautions for its users. The concerns resulted in hundreds of similar Roundup lawsuits initiated in courts across the nation. The IARC found an increased risk between exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, according to the lawsuit. The complaint also alleges that IARC found glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal harm in human cells.

Several other Roundup cases pending in federal court will be consolidated with the complaint and will be part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). The MDL is centralized before a federal judge in the Northern District of California in an effort to create judicial economy by avoiding duplicate discovery, preventing conflicting district court rulings, and serving the convenience of the witnesses, parties and the courts. The Roundup cases will be bifurcated – or split in two. The first phase will address the causal link between the popular weedkiller and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (in addition to other forms of cancer). Cases that are not dismissed based on general causation or are not settled during the first phase of discovery will be prepared for early trial dates.

What is Roundup?

The herbicide glyphosate has been on the market and in use since the 1970s when the manufacturer, Monsanto, first introduced the product as Roundup. Since the 1970s, Roundup has become the most used herbicide on the planet. Research shows that Monsanto engineered crops that are resistant glyphosate. This results in encouraging farmers to heavily spray crops with the herbicide in an attempt to get rid of aggressive weeds. Because the weeds adapt to glyphosate exposure over time farmers, workers, landscapers, and migrant field workers are forced to use more of the product and increase their exposure to the herbicide over time. Since Monsanto’s patent protection for Roundup expired in 2000, causing a number of glyphosate-using competitors for the weedkiller.

RoundUp’s Link to Cancers

A former cancer toxicologist who spent 30 years with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who left the agency in 2012 lists in an open letter over a dozen manners in which Roundup could cause cancer. She also accused the EPA official in charge of reviewing the product of intimidating staff to change reports in support of Monsanto. According to the letter, Roundup could cause cancer in 14 ways including:

Chelators suppress the immune system, making a person susceptible to tumors;

Glyphosate kills gut bacteria, which affects the gastrointestinal system; and

Damage to kidneys and/or pancreas can lead to clinical changes that favor tumor generation.

Product Liability Lawsuits

Product liability is the area of law where a business is sued by a consumer for injuries suffered as a result of a defective product. Theories of recovery under product liability include contract and tort. They often involve negligence or strict liability for the company being sued.

Generally, in order to be successful an injured party must prove fault by establishing the other party was “negligent” and this negligence caused the victim’s harm. Negligence is found when a victim can establish that a party breached a legal duty owed to him or her, causing harm to the person, resulting in damages. Establishing fault is essential in a personal injury case – including a product liability matter – as fault directly determines who is awarded compensatory damages in and who is liable for payment. Negligence is one theory, however, that an injured party in a products liability case may pursue to establish fault and successfully seek monetary compensation.

Even if negligence is not present, the manufacturer or retailer of the product may be held financially responsible under a product liability action through what is referred to as strict liability. In products liability, if an injured victim can establish strict liability if he or she can prove the product was defectively manufactured, defectively designed, or defectively labeled and this defect was the cause of the victim’s injury. An injured victim can sue any business entity in the chain of the product’s distribution, which may be held liable for damages. Some examples of product defects include:

Defective design – the product’s blueprint is faulty;

Defective manufacture – the factory did not follow the product’s blueprint properly; and

Defective warnings – the failure to include proper instructions for safe use or warning labels.

Product defects may occur in the packaging, warning labels, safety features, or as a result of the product being unreasonably dangerous.

RoundUp Attorneys

If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and your health issues may be related to exposure to Roundup, contact the experienced dangerous drug attorneys at the Roger Ghai Law Offices. These aggressive and compassionate attorneys will advocate for clients and their loved ones with diligence. Call today to schedule your initial consultation.

Family homesteads that grow food for local communities, corporate food production farms, and even urban gardens have all potentially experienced exposure to a dangerous carcinogen: glyphosate. The key ingredient in Roundup, this toxin’s effect is exacerbated when in combination with other chemicals found in the weed killer. In other words, people who have worked on farms or in backyard gardens may be at risk to develop cancer after Roundup comes into contact with the skin or eyes, or after breathing in the spray. Immediate symptoms could include increased salivation, burns in the throat or mouth, nausea and vomiting, and diarrhea. Long-term exposure has been connected to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Scientific studies indicate elevated risks for pregnant mothers and possibly for children, as well.

Additionally, food contamination and other serious consequences related to this toxin causes genuine concern. That news is disturbing enough. Add to that the fact that the dangers of glyphosate poisoning may have been well known by scientists and marketers for years, and the issue becomes outrageous. If negligent or misleading actions by Roundup’s creators have led to serious illness, legal action may be the only recourse.

The Toxin Found in Roundup Weed Killers

Glyphosate is an herbicide produced by Monsanto and widely used in the food production industry in a product known as Roundup Ready. Home gardeners also use Roundup to control weeds in their gardens. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified this chemical as probably carcinogenic to humans based on animal experiments combined with real-world exposures and cancer development in humans. This is a significant problem in the United States, since Monsanto’s Roundup products are used in 80 percent of American farms that produce soybean, cotton, and corn.

Monsanto Knew of the Dangers

Although Monsanto denies that their product causes cancer, there is evidence to the contrary, and it seems that Monsanto executives have know it causes cancer for quite some time. There are indications that Monsanto manipulated data produced by their own health-effects research, attempting to manage the reaction to potentially damaging study results. The company took a page from tobacco company strategies, channeling money to front groups who published articles extolling the benefits of their product and attacking organizations that sought stronger regulations.

Monsanto is also accused of creating a program called Let Nothing Go, wherein they paid people who had no ties to the industry to post comments online defending the company and the chemicals in its products. Although Monsanto refutes this accusation, there is no denying that they have spent $60 million lobbying congress, visiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and developing relationships with the powers that be. When the EPA came out with preliminary conclusions questioning the toxicity of Roundup, the Inspector General revealed there was an investigation to determine whether or not Monsanto and high-level EPA officials had colluded to produce positive outcomes. Email and other evidence points to this as a serious possibility.

As far back as 1984, Monsanto research produced results indicative of cancer in conjunction with Roundup. Rather than act to promote safety, Monsanto fought the conclusions of it’s own scientists, and eventually produced a panel of experts who deemed the previous results statistically insignificant.

Then in 1999, Monsanto provided their research data to a genetic toxicologist named James Parry, expecting him to verify that their product was safe. Instead, Parry found, after an examination of Monsanto’s own data, that oxidative stress did, indeed, seem to connect the product to cancer. He suggested further study. Instead, company execs floundered through their options, ultimately deciding that trying to change Perry’s mind would be costly and likely not worth the effort. Emails also confirm the company’s stance that “Data generated by academics has always been a major concern…in the defense of our products.” They shelved Parry’s report, and proceeded as though it had never been written.

Although the EPA disputes evidence of a link to cancer, there are questions as to the integrity of research supplied by the agrochemical companies. Likewise, there appears to be disagreement among EPA scientists as to the dangers of glyphosate.

Exposure through Foods

Studies indicate that direct contact with Roundup products and other herbicides could create a cancer peril, putting farmworkers and backyard gardeners at risk. Beyond that, foods produced in conjunction with Roundup products have been found to contain high levels of glyphosate, meaning there is a potential for harm to consumers. Some of the foods that have been tested and that show alarming levels of this poison include:

General Mills’ Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios;

Kelloggs’ Raisin Bran, Frosted Flakes, and Corn Flakes;

PepsiCos’ Doritos and Cool Ranch Doritos;

Ritz Crackers;

Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips;

Pepperidge Farm Goldfish Crackers;

Kashi Soft-Baked Cookies, Oatmeal Cookies, and Chocolate Cookies;

Lay’s Kettle Cooked and Original Chips;

Frito-Lay Fritos;

Nabisco’s Oreos and Double Stuffs;

Little Debbie’s Oatmeal Crème;

Whole Foods 365 Organic Golden Round Crackers.

Independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates that the allowable daily intake (ADI) levels of glyphosate in this country should be reduced by at least 70 times the current allowable limits. Notably, there is no real safe level. Also worth mentioning is the fact that many of the herbicide formulations used in Roundup actually increase glyphosate’s toxicity.

Roundup Lawsuit

Advocates across the country are coming to the aid of victims of Roundup. People who used Monsanto’s product for years at work or at home are showing up with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Victims of Monsanto’s dangerous products and their campaign to disguise the peril may find some level of satisfaction and financial compensation from seeking an answer to their health woes from the courts. Future settlements could potentially address a number of issues associated with exposure to Roundup:

Medical costs;

Lost wages;

Loss of companionship in the event of a fatality;

Pain and suffering;

Mental and emotional stress; and

Punitive damages.

If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and you believe your health issues are related to exposure to Roundup, contact the experienced legal team at the Roger Ghai Law Offices. Our compassionate, yet aggressive attorneys will advocate for clients with diligence. Schedule a consultation today,

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which placed glyphosate in its Category 2A as a probable carcinogen), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the active ingredient in Roundup products—glyphosate—is a known carcinogen.

Glyphosate

Glyphosate is known as a “non-selective herbicide,” meaning that it kills indiscriminately so long as an organism produces 5-enolpyruvyl shikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (also known as EPSP synthase)—a specific enzyme. Since glyphosate is absorbed into the structure of the plant and root system, it cannot be washed off.

Each year, for nearly 40 years, approximately 250 million pounds of glyphosate have been sprayed on crops, lawns, parks, golf courses, and nurseries; increasingly driven by the proliferation of genetically-engineered crops who have grown resistant to glyphosate. This includes an estimated 90 percent of soybean fields and 70 percent of corn and cotton crops. Lab tests have shown trace amounts of the chemical in many processed foods made with Roundup resistant grains.

Those Affected

It isn’t just gardeners and homeowners who are concerned about cancer from the product—many farmers and those who worked in the plants that produced the chemicals for Roundup are concerned that Roundup could be killing them. Many of them now have health issues including Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphoma Leukemia; with their own doctors pointing out the link between these cancers and overexposure to herbicides and pesticides. One-thousand or so of these farmers are now suing Monsanto in a class-action lawsuit.

Actions to Ban

The International Agency for Research on Cancer released its report indicating that glyphosate was carcinogenic in 2015. Since then, countries including France, Colombia, and Sri Lanka have banned the chemical’s use. Although the United States as a whole has not yet banned the chemical, various jurisdictions have taken their own actions to protect consumers; California, for example, listed glyphosate as an agent known to cause cancer. In addition, various counties and communities within New Mexico have contemplated placing a ban on the herbicide.

U.S. Regulation of Roundup

Herbicides such as roundup are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which requires that they be registered with the EPA before they are distributed, sold, or used. While the EPA does conduct certain tests to find out if products are toxic to people and/or the environment, registration is by no means a guarantee that a product is automatically safe.

Nature if the Claims against Roundup

Anyone injured by a product like Roundup can file an action for damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of Monsanto’s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, maintaining that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit, and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions regarding the dangers associated with its use.

Those Roundup products that are the target of the lawsuits include, but are not limited to:

Misleading Advertising

Individuals aren’t the only ones who’ve pursued Monsanto over glyphosate: In 1996, New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the company for false and misleading advertising of glyphosate-based products, including herbicides like Roundup. The company had labeled the product as “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” As a result, the company agreed to modify its advertising in the state of New York alone.

Many now feel that it should be a routine practice for the company to have to place warnings on all bottles of Roundup, regardless of what state the product occurs in.

The Fight with Monsanto

Although it denies the link between the chemical and cancer, according to the complaints filed, Monsanto has been aware of its deadly effects for years.

Due to the expected level of resources Monsanto will presumably sink into fighting these claims, those whose health has been negatively affected by a Roundup product should work with experienced tort/personal injury/environmental hazard attorneys in bringing any claims against the company.

You have every right to expect that products you use – including pesticides and herbicides – are safe for use. Unfortunately, many of the products that we are exposed to on a daily basis end up causing harm/or death to ourselves and/or our loved ones.

If you or a loved one that there has been an injury or a death due to a Roundup product, contact the Roger Ghai Law Offices today. As a leading Marietta faulty product attorney, Roger Ghai has the skills and experience to provide you with the aggressive representation you need to obtain the compensation necessary to begin to recover.